Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA, J
Vasireddy Mruthyumjayarao – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint lodged by de-facto complainant (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners' counsel argues lack of allegations (Para 5) |
| 3. respondent's counsel argues for specific acts (Para 6) |
| 4. point of consideration for quashing (Para 7) |
| 5. inherent powers under section 482 (Para 8) |
| 6. scope of powers under section 482 (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. complaint must disclose an offence (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. proceedings quashed against a2 to a6 (Para 16) |
ORDER :
2. Criminal Petition No.7588 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A6, while Criminal Petition No.7506 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner/A1, challenging the proceedings in Crime No.190 of 2019 registered by the Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-A, 509, 211 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Act, 2015.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de- facto complainant would contend that there are specific overt acts attributed
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to quash proceedings only when no offence is disclosed, requiring specific allegations against eac....
The court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash proceedings where allegations prima facie constitute an offense.
The court emphasized that prosecution for cheating requires clear evidence of dishonest intention from the outset, and vague allegations without such intent constitute an abuse of process.
The court quashed proceedings against petitioners as allegations did not constitute offences under IPC or SC/ST Act, emphasizing the necessity of prima facie grounds for prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
The court quashed proceedings against petitioners as allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for prima facie grounds for prosecution.
The court ruled that the absence of dishonest intention in the allegations against the petitioners justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The absence of specific allegations against the petitioner in a criminal complaint warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if they are found to be an abuse of process, particularly when the complainant has previously lost in civil litigation.
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
